set_gameplay_effect_component_chance_to_apply

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=true, so safety is partly covered. The description goes further by explaining the idempotency mechanism (FindOrAddComponent + set-to-fixed-value) and the create-if-absent behavior, which the annotations alone don't convey. It does not discuss permissions or asset-save side effects, keeping it just below a full 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by implementation detail and a Returns block. Information density is high with no filler sentences, though the nested parenthetical makes the middle clause slightly run-on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by spelling out the full return object including verification fields (chance_readback, chance_matches, already_existed, set). Combined with the create-if-absent and idempotency notes, an agent has what it needs, though the absence of any discussion of saving/compiling the blueprint leaves a small gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the chance range and the blueprint_name alias rationale. The description's '(0.0..1.0)' merely repeats the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource: configuring a ChanceToApplyGameplayEffectComponent and setting the probability (0.0..1.0) the GE applies to its target. This is precise enough to distinguish it from the many sibling set_gameplay_effect_component_* tools, which target tags, blocked abilities, and granted abilities rather than chance-to-apply.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for setting the apply-chance, but no alternative is named and no when/when-not guidance is given relative to siblings like add_gameplay_effect_component or get_gameplay_effect_components. The 'creates the component if absent' note is contextual but not routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.